I do this for my own curiosity….and hope you find it of interest as well.

Every year, fans & media talk about the draft in relation to plugging holes of weakness on a team. The assumption tends to be that any player drafted in the 1st(particularly high picks), 2nd, 3rd and sometimes 4th round will solve the problems of that team at the given position.

I will be endeavouring to ascertain the likelihood of teams actually achieving this for each position.I will be using strict unbiased criteria to avoid personal opinion affecting the results.

The criteria I am setting for a player to be considered to “plug a hole” of need is:(Starter) Having played as a starter for the drafting team(12+ starts) for 5+ seasons.

I am also determining Stars: 4+ Pro Bowls for the drafting team.

For fun I normally list the probowlers, but for the sake of readability I am not listing them for the OL positions.

I will be breaking the draft up into rounds 1, 2, 3, 4/5, 6/7, as well as breaking the 1st round into 5 sections. #1, #2-#4, #5-#10, #11-#20 & #21-#32. Round 2 will consist of players from #33 to end of round 2.

The data pool will be selected from 20 years of drafts from 1986 – 2005. This ensures all draftees have a full 8 years of NFL experience to achieve my benchmarks.(Rounded to the nearest percent)

Due to the interchangeable nature of the OL, I have done a breakdown for the overall OL as well as each individual area denoted underneath each section in brackets, (C, OG, OT)....and again in percentage terms.

Offensive Line

Round 1

101 players selected(7, 18, 76)

14 Stars 14% (1 in 7.2)(0, 5, 9) (0%, 28%, 12%)

38 Starters 38% (1 in 2.7)(1, 8, 29) (14%, 44%, 38%)

R1 Pick 1

1 player selected(0, 0, 1)

1 Stars 100% (1 in 1)1 Starters 100% (1 in 1)

R1 Picks 2-4

8 players selected(0, 0, 8)

3 Stars 38% (1 in 2.7)6 Starters 75% (1 in 1.3)

R1 Picks 5-10

19 players selected(0, 2, 17)

4 Stars 21% (1 in 4.8)(0, 0, 4) (0%, 0%, 24%)

11 Starters 58% (1 in 1.7)(0, 0, 11) (0%, 0%, 65%)

R1 Picks 11-20

34 players selected(3, 6, 25)

2 Stars 6% (1 in 17)(0, 2, 0) (0%, 33%, 0%)

11 Starters 32% (1 in 3.1)(1, 3, 7) (33%, 50%, 28%)

R1 Picks 21-32

39 players selected(4, 10, 25)

4 Stars 10% (1 in 9.8)(0, 3, 1) (0%, 30%, 4%)

9 Starters 23% (1 in 4.3)(0, 5, 4) (0%, 50%, 16%)

Round 2(from pick #33)

82 players selected(19, 25, 38)

5 Stars 6% (1 in 16.4)(1, 3, 1) (5%, 12%, 3%)

27 Starters 33% (1 in 3)(8, 9, 10) (42%, 36%, 26%)

Round 3

109 players selected(20, 45, 44)

3 Stars 3% (1 in 36.3)(1, 1, 1) (5%, 2%, 2%)

14 Starters 13% (1 in 7.8)(4, 6, 4) (20%, 13%, 9%)

Rounds 4/5

213 players selected(39, 80, 94)

0 Stars19 Starters 9% (1 in 11.2)(5, 6, 8) (13%, 8%, 9%)

Rounds 6/7

236 players selected(45, 83, 108)

2 Stars 1% (1 in 118)(1, 0, 1) (2%, 0%, 1%)

12 Starters 5% (1 in 19.7)(3, 6, 3) (7%, 7%, 3%)

Notes & Observations:Not surprisingly there were far more OTs taken in the 1st round than there were OGs or Cs.

Though overall the 1st round success for OLmen was extremely high, for some reason 1st round Cs did not fare so well. They did however have an extraordinary 2nd round Starter success rate of 42% as well as a 20% 3rd round Starter success rate that is roughly double that of most positions I have studied to date.

Talent evaluation of the OT position seems to be extremely good. Of Top 10 selections, 18 of 26 became Starters(69%) with 8 of those becoming Stars(31%). It is apparent that if a team wishes to draft a Star OT, they would need to do so inside the Top 10 as the drop off after that is dramatic. 11-32 = 2%, R2 = 3%, R3 = 2%.

There is also a generally high Starter success rate in the later rounds for the entire OL. In accordance to the values in the standard Trade Value Chart, it would make sense for teams looking for Starter OGs to ignore rounds 3-5 graded players and stock up on them in rounds 6/7. For their OTs, ignore round 3 and select them in rounds 4/5.

Similar to the LB position, there were a noticeable number of OLmen who were regular starters that changed teams after their rookie contracts expired and continued as starters for their new teams. This included starting calibre OTs.

Dibs, before i delve into your analytics i must suggest..
Take a look at booze and cheap women for something to fill up your days.
These things are unfulfilling but can really take up alot of time if you allow it.
Just trying to help.

Dibs, before i delve into your analytics i must suggest..Take a look at booze and cheap women for something to fill up your days.These things are unfulfilling but can really take up alot of time if you allow it.Just trying to help.

lol....I appreciate the thought.

(As it happens....for reasons I won't disclose here, I am awake for 18-20 hours a day unable to go out. Football & TSW are great time fillers for me.)